Most conventional prior traps can be classified as either "holding" or "terminating" traps. Holding traps generally capture a live animal and detain the animal until released by the trapper. Terminating traps typically exterminate captured animals immediately.
Holding-type traps usually have at least three elements: 1) a body (holding area), 2) a trigger, and 3) a door (generally either gravity or spring-loaded). While terminating traps can be structurally simpler than a holding trap, they are often just holding traps to which an exterminatory method has been added.
Both types of traps often use bodies comprising a metal frame that is covered with heavy wire. Some traps use an enclosed body made of metal or other materials.
Most conventional trigger designs employ pressure-sensitive release mechanisms. When actuated (i.e., stepped on by an animal), the mechanism normally moves a metal rod that releases the door. The door is typically held in the open position and biased in the closed position with the release of the holding rod, the door falls and latches. The door may also be cooperatively or alternatively spring-loaded to close and latch.
Kass, U.S. Pat. No. 1,382,425 shows the use of combination holding and terminating water trap to kill mice, rats or other small vermin.
Smith U.S. Pat. No. 4,763,439, shows a device that use an air-tight cylindrical tube as a holding area. Preferably, a knock-out or an asphyxiating pellet exterminates the animal.
Another cylindrical tube trap is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,583,316, issued to Holtgrefe. The Holtgrefe device traps the animal inside a cylindrical tube using a trigger that is roughly in its center.
A variety of vertically moving trap doors of general relevance are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,310,984, issued to Burbaker, Jr., 2,541,681, issued to Andrews, 5,345,710, issued to Bitz, and 1,654,434, issued to Senecal.
An interesting device is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 1,858,096, to Lementy. Apparently, the trap only captivates the animal's head. Another interesting device is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 4,318,241, issued to Frassauer. Once the mouse enters the trap, the trap rotates and releases an asphyxiating foam material that fills the trap.
Notwithstanding the above prior art, adverse weather conditions prevent most conventional outdoor traps from functioning correctly. For example, no known conventional land trap will continue to function properly after being exposed to snowfall or freezing rain. Thus, an improved trap should be able to continue functioning properly during adverse weather conditions.
Another advantage lacking in most prior land traps is the adaptability to be appropriately reconfigured so that animals may also be trapped adjacent water or in the water. Such a trap could be utilized to catch a live animal or drown a captured animal.
Yet another problem with many prior traps involves the use of bait. Federal statutes prohibit the use of uncovered baits if the bait can be seen by predatory birds (i.e., eagles, hawks, etc.). Thus, an improved trap would permit the selective use of live bait and other types of baits as well as scents.
Furthermore, many prior traps look exactly like what they are--"traps" or "cages". An improved trap would need to be disguised, preferably looking like a portion of the target animals natural environment. For example, many target animals regularly use pipes or culverts as convenient paths. Thus, a trap that looked like another pipe or culvert (i.e., a hole to be explored or a shortcut to be traveled) would be ideal.
An ideal trap must work equally well on the land and in the water. Thus, the trapper may selectively use the trap on dry land, adjacent water or actually deployed in the water, either floating on it or submerged beneath it. Furthermore, such a trap should also permit the trapper to either capture live animals or terminate target animals.